How do you convice someone, if you even can?

[Oldgringo]

If you lead an animal to water and you can get it to drink, it is probably not a horse.

After many, many years of being single, after the end of my first marriage, I got married again. My second wife knew that I was a retired LEO and I had handguns. When we got married, she told me she did not want guns in the house. Too late, they were coming with me. Now I never flash them and she rarely sees them even though I always have one close by.

I have talked to her about going to the range and getting my pistol proficiency qualification to carry under LEOSA 2004. But I still keep them close by but out of her sight. One day she surprised me, she said that she wants to go to the range with me. So, I taught her the rules of safe handling. I showed her a .22, which she said was ugly. They I showed her my duty weapon. She liked it.

You never know. Sometimes the horse will drink when you least expect it to.

Nice story. Mrs. Oldgringo has her CHL and her own .38 snubbie and access to others and knows one of the other is on me most times and she's cool with that. Does she want to shoot? No.

[KD5NRH]

If you lead a horse to water, he'll drink eventually.

If you beat him over the head, yell at him, drag him, he won't only not drink, he'll probably kick you then run away screaming.

If you beat him over the head properly, he'll get docile enough for you to start IV fluids.

Don't you people know anything about behavior modification?

[Mithras61]

An interesting and valid question. I suspect that the root of the problem is a commitment to non-violence at the core of her beliefs.

I'm going to suggest a good fantasy fiction book here that touches on this very subject. It's called Naked Empire by Terry Goodkind, and deals with a non-violent society that has been invaded by a very violent and oppressive one. It's actually one of a series by Mr. Goodkind referred to as "The Sword of Truth" series. You may have encountered a TV series that is based in the first couple of books in that series.

Anyway, the lead character questions this belief set and instills in this society the will to fight back by engaging in a series of discussions with people from this society in which he points out that the non-violent have given moral equivalence to all actions (that is, all actions are equally valid), and that they are claiming through inaction (failure to resist) that rape, murder, assault and theft are as equally valid reactions as preservation of life, charity, and so on. They have, in fact, equated preservation of life and murder as equally valid in the scale of human reaction.

I think that's the real crux of the issue. People have somehow come to believe that if they just are compassionate enough, non-judgemental enough or understanding enough, the bad guys will cease their rapine, pillaging, plundering and so on. Reality dictates otherwise. Reality says that these people, if they are not forcibly stopped, will continue on in their ways. What makes them stop is being forced to do so, either with direct force or threat of force. In the story you related, the threat of force (prosecution & jailing) is essentially a non-issue to the gang members. Police have indicated that they essentially have no leads and can't do anything to stop future assaults.

A moral and reasonable reaction is to bring the threat of force closer. Most people on this board agree that this is a reasonable reaction, and the method we generally prefer is firearms. Firearms remove the need for strength from the equation (I don't have to be strong enough to fight them off), equalize the disparate threat (it doesn't matter nearly so much if there are three or four of them attacking) and allow for graduated threat levels (I don't have to start off killing, I can threaten the use of deadly force).

This progression from non-violence to willingness to protect ourselves is not something that typically happens overnight or in the course of a single discussion. I would encourage you to read Naked Empire for its value in the arguments that are used, as well as any other resource you can find that discusses the topic of self-defense and the morality of such, and use the arguments you find to persuade this person. Also, don't give up because the person gets excited or angry. Back off from the topic and re-approach it another time. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.

[smokindragon]

Well for a good year my wife was against me carrying in the house, or even storing it in the house.

Until... we had someone messing around in our front yard early one morning " 1:00" .

She called 911 and while talking with them, the 911 operator asked her if we had protection and well she said yes, but it is in my husbands car...

Well after that night all things changed and now I can carry in the house, and I do until I get ready to settle down to bed and then it is only a reach away.

Oh, and the police even asked the same question when they arrived 30 MINUTES LATER!!!

Oh, turns out that our house was just " wrapped " toilet papered, still makes you think, at least that is all it took for my wife to be convinced.

[seamusTX]

I suspect that the root of the problem is a commitment to non-violence at the core of her beliefs.

There are very few true pacifists who will not lift a hand even when they are directly attacked, like the Amish.

Most people like the woman in question here simply wish that violence would not happen. They may think that violence is caused by social ills such as poverty, and could be eliminated through education and understanding. This is, of course, magical thinking.

When they are attacked, they want the police to use force on their behalf. They may complain afterward that the police used too much force; but in their moment of terror, they want to police to come down like the wrath of God.

I'm neither a psychologist nor a mind-reader, but I suspect many of them have failed to deal with repressed violent impulses of their own.

This kind of illogical emotion cannot be fixed through intellectual debate or lecturing, as I said earlier.

- Jim

[Mithras61]

I suspect that the root of the problem is a commitment to non-violence at the core of her beliefs.

There are very few true pacifists who will not lift a hand even when they are directly attacked, like the Amish.

Most people like the woman in question here simply wish that violence would not happen. They may think that violence is caused by social ills such as poverty, and could be eliminated through education and understanding. This is, of course, magical thinking.

When they are attacked, they want the police to use force on their behalf. They may complain afterward that the police used too much force; but in their moment of terror, they want to police to come down like the wrath of God.

I'm neither a psychologist nor a mind-reader, but I suspect many of them have failed to deal with repressed violent impulses of their own.

This kind of illogical emotion cannot be fixed through intellectual debate or lecturing, as I said earlier.

- Jim

I suppose you may be right, but then again, I'm not talking about true pacifism, more a personal commitment to not do violence to anyone/thing else, but still more than willing to coerce someone else to do violence on their behalf. As you say, quite willing to have police come down like the wrath of God on the perps. Probably also the "why doesn't someone DO something!" type. My point is that they are being hypocritical in their position. The Amish are true pacifists in that they will resist allowing others to do violence on their behalf.

I'm suggesting that bringing out the point that their thinking is flawed, that they are willing to see violence done (just don;'t want the responsibility of handling their own problems), and that they thenselves are actually responsible for their own safety may be a way through the morass.

Of course, they may be one of those "I just feel that it's wrong, and no argument that you can offer will change that." types, in which case your best bet is to keep clear.

[battalion74]

I believe that you just have to give them time to warm up to guns or something happening that makes them change their minds. But.....
I have a cousin that is so stubborn, that she believes that no one should have guns and that no one should have to take a life. After we went to watch a movie, she found out that I had a CHL. We got into a discussion about guns for about an hour, in the end, I asked her, "what if someone assaults you and wants to kill you, would you defend yourself?" She was adamant that she would never take anothers life, but also believed that they wouldn't kill her either. In the end, I come to the conclusion that she would rather let them kill her, instead of defending herself.
Granted, in all likelihood, if she did whined up in this scenario, self preservation would more then likely take control. At the same time, it may be too late in the end.

[Oldgringo]

May I remind y'all of the young guy who was a student at Va Tech and whose girfriend was one of the victims at the time of that outrage? This guy is currently a graduate student at UT Austin and was featured in the SA media AND on this forum not too long ago. IIRC, his advice was to lay down, play dead and hope you don't get shot. Apparently, there are people who would rather take a chance on not getting dead than defend themselves and their loved ones.

Perhaps, we should all take a socio/psych test and determine who these people are and let them wear "NO-CHL" or "DON'T COUNT on ME" badges or something?

[seamusTX]

Let me retell this story of two women:

Suzanna Gratia Hupp saw her parents killed by a lunatic in the Luby's massacre in Killeen in 1991. She went on to become one of the foremost proponents of the right to keep and bear arms. No one can say for sure, but it's possible that we would not have had CHL in Texas if not for her testimony. She later was elected to the Texas House of Representatives, and would still be there if she wanted to.

Carolyn McCarthy's husband was killed and her son was severely injured by a lunatic in the Long Island Railroad massacre in 1993. She went on to become perhaps the only member of Congress whose sole agenda is "gun control" and nothing else.

Perhaps the tree grows the way that the twig is bent, and little can change that. I dunno. It's above my pay grade.

- Jim

[TxDrifter]

Like an earlier post mentioned, you can't convince them until they are prepared to listen. This was one of the few episodes of "30 Days" I watched. Most tend to turn someone to the liberal side of issues. This one was decidedly different and she didn't consider until talking to a family that personally had to use one to protect themselves. The episode is called Gun Nation.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/25712/30-days-gun-nation

[nitrogen]

Like an earlier post mentioned, you can't convince them until they are prepared to listen.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/25712/30-days-gun-nation

[/quote]

While this is true, I think you can also sometimes prepare someone to listen, as well.
As i said before (somewhat meanly) I don't think many folks here could do it well, because they have very little in common with anti-gunners and other liberals.

It's just like that one ST:TNG episode: "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."
"Temba, his arms wide! Sokath, his eyes uncovered!"

[ClarkLZeuss]

I'm suggesting that bringing out the point that their thinking is flawed, that they are willing to see violence done (just don;'t want the responsibility of handling their own problems), and that they thenselves are actually responsible for their own safety may be a way through the morass.

One of my friends pointed out the same thing recently: whenever someone says it's preferable to call the cops than carry a gun, they have actually - albeit unknowingly - stated that guns are the solution. But if you point this out to them, they will usually respond with something like, "Well, the police are professionally trained in handling firearms." This is where the rubber really meets the road. How do we respond to this? I think this kind of mindset would be labeled by folks like Mark Levin as "statist" - trusting in the State to do everything for you. So how do we dismantle this thinking?

[ClarkLZeuss]

It's just like that one ST:TNG episode: "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."
"Temba, his arms wide! Sokath, his eyes uncovered!"

Dude, classic episode!

[nitrogen]

I'm suggesting that bringing out the point that their thinking is flawed, that they are willing to see violence done (just don;'t want the responsibility of handling their own problems), and that they thenselves are actually responsible for their own safety may be a way through the morass.

One of my friends pointed out the same thing recently: whenever someone says it's preferable to call the cops than carry a gun, they have actually - albeit unknowingly - stated that guns are the solution. But if you point this out to them, they will usually respond with something like, "Well, the police are professionally trained in handling firearms." This is where the rubber really meets the road. How do we respond to this? I think this kind of mindset would be labeled by folks like Mark Levin as "statist" - trusting in the State to do everything for you. So how do we dismantle this thinking?

Depends on the person.

As an example, two people I took to the range about a year and a half ago: He's a scientist, PHD candidate, and his sister is just a general stereotypical hippie.

This very subject came up. (i.e. "The cops will come and they are professionals highly trained to use guns, etc"
So I proposed an experiment.
I wagered that I could teach his sister, inside of one day, to shoot a target at 10 yards, with the typical "two on the chest, one in the head" move. after a few hours of instruction. If she was able to to it, he'd take me and her out to a nice expensive steak dinner. If she was unable to do it, I'd take him and her to an expensive seafood dinner.
(No bias on her part, either way she got dinner out of it!)

After an hour and a half of practice, she did wonderfully; making a raggedy hole in the chest ring, and another somewhat raggedy hole in the head.

She had such a good time, she now shoots IDPA or IPSC somewhere in San Antonio.

He changed his tune somewhat after that. After seeing his sister have such a ball, he gave up thinking guns didn't belong in the hands of "private citizens", and that they could adequately defend themselves with them. He even shot a few rounds of IDPA, but decided guns weren't for him. He mostly supports the private ownership of weapons, but he's still for an AWB. (I still have work to do!)

You bring up another point that touches on something I didn't want to get into, but figure what the heck.

I think a lot of people on the "other side" of issues (here, I mostly mean "righties" but both sides are guilty of this) like to dehumanize people that disagree with them.
Your average person that believes that guns arent for private citizens isn't a communist or a statist because they believe that. Most of the time, these people honestly believe that guns are these magical voodoo objects that only chosen ones can handle, like it's some kind of sword in a stone.

Others have a problem with the NRA member stereotype. (a stereotype which we, or the NRA doesn't do a good enough job of breaking, and at times seems to encourage!) The NRA and other advocacy orgs need to do a better job reaching out to others to get them to the correct side of the fence.

We as gun owners need to do better to welcome those folks that might indeed be "statist, leftists" to the right side of the gun issue!

[seamusTX]

... "Well, the police are professionally trained in handling firearms." This is where the rubber really meets the road. How do we respond to this?

Police officers generally don't have all that much training. I don't know exactly what they do get. What is the DPS curriculum? Twenty-six weeks? That's not exactly a Ph.D. in law enforcement and criminal justice. Much of it is about issues like search and seizure, evidence, and how to deal with domestic disputes, which are not concerns for the non-LEO citizen.

The bottom line is that when someone is kicking your door down at 3 a.m., you don't have to be Elliott Ness to know who the bad guys are and where to point the shotgun.

- Jim